Opinion
CR22-0127JLR
02-12-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN MICHAEL SHERWOOD, Defendant.
ORDER
JAMES L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the court is Defendant John Michael Sherwood's pro se ex parte Motion to Terminate Counsel and Declaration in Support Thereof. (2/7/24 Mot. (Dkt. # 68 (sealed)).) Mr. Sherwood is currently represented by counsel. (See generally Dkt.) As such, Mr. Sherwood may not file a pro se motion unless he complies with the requirements of Local Criminal Rule 62.2(b)(5). See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCrR 62.2(b)(5) (requiring a represented party that seeks to appear or act pro se to “request[] by motion to proceed on his or her own behalf, certif[y] in the motion that he or she has provided copies of the motion to his or her current counsel and to the opposing party, and [receive from the court] an order of substitution by the court terminating the party's attorney”); see also United States v. Halbert, 640 F.2d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A criminal defendant does not have an absolute right to both self-representation and the assistance of counsel. Whether to allow hybrid representation remains within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” (internal citations omitted)); United States v. Durden, 673 F.Supp. 308, 309 (N.D. Ind. 1987) (exercising discretion to decline to consider a represented criminal defendant's pro se motion). The court notes that Mr. Sherwood's counsel has already filed a motion seeking the relief that Mr. Sherwood requests in the instant motion and discussing the appointment of standby counsel, which is scheduled for a hearing on February 14, 2024. (See 1/30/24 Mot. (Dkt. # 65); Not. (Dkt. # 66).)
Because Mr. Sherwood improperly filed his motion pro se, the court STRIKES the motion to terminate counsel (Dkt. # 68) from the docket.